Analyzing the illegality and invalidity of the South China Sea Arbitration Awards via six 'whys'

Why is it erroneous for the arbitral tribunal to deny that China can claim rights over the Nansha Qundao as an entirety? The arbitral tribunal's stance, which denies Nansha Qundao's qualification to claim territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, is fundamentally flawed for the following three reasons: Firstly, from a legislative history perspective, the régime of continental States' outlying archipelagos was well established under customary international law prior to the conclusion of the Convention. During the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, extensive debates took place regarding the regulation of continental States' outlying archipelagos, with different views on "single clauses" versus "different clauses." Later, in the 1975 "Informal Single Negotiating Text", a distinction was made between archipelagic States and continental States' outlying archipelagos, treating them as separate issues. Moreover, China's claims are supported by abundant domestic laws, including the 1958 "Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea," the 1992 "Law on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone," the 1998 "Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Law," and the 1996 National People's Congress Standing Committee's "Decision on Ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," which explicitly affirm China's claims of rights over the Nansha Qundao in its entirety.